Do you guys shoot insects dead or alive?

[Namerifrats]

Just wondering something. Do you guys shoot your insects alive or dead? I was under the impression of live shooting. I, personally, would rather just photograph the insects without harming them. But I ran across these two links through another discussion here and they make it sound like it's common practice to shot dead insects.

http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7279

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7122


They talk about freezing, dispatching, keeping insects in the fridge, etc. First I've heard of any of this. They also mention capture insect for shooting, do you guys do that? Or just shoot them in their natural environment?

[Salma]

I took pictures of some and even though I was really scared and shaking I wouldn't dare do anything to them. Isn't it just better to photograph them doing their own thing?

[Namerifrats]

I wouldn't dare do anything to them. Isn't it just better to photograph them doing their own thing?

My thoughts exactly! I enjoy all creatures and don't want to kill anything just to take a photo of it. I want to shoot them in their environment doing what they do.

[Salma]

I agree, I mean I can understand it must be tough and you need alot of patience since they move around alot and so fast but it's something you have to deal with, freezing and killing? Not very pleasant to take a photo of a dead insect :/

[LordV]

Think most of the macro shooters here just shoot bugs as is. Some might move them to an easier shooting position when this is possible.
There are some photogs that specialise in doing high magnification focus stack bug shots where you do need to kill the bug first normally by freezing.
I try to make sure that my shooting of bugs causes them no harm but do admit to trying fridging a wasp once to slow it down and to also freezing a fly once to use as test target. Must admit I did not particularly enjoy shooting either of these. Half the fun of bug shooting for me is in the "hunt" and difficulty of taking bug shots in their natural surroundings.
I am guilty though of sometimes baiting bugs with honey esp ants :)

Overall I think most macroshooters are much kinder to bugs than the average person - we reach for a camera instead of a fly swat or can of insectacide and often trap bugs in the house and release them outside rather than kill them.

Brian V.

[John_B]

Namerifrats,
I try to get them alive in there natural settings!

However I have occasionally taken a macro photo of a dead bug, but dead naturally (not from freezing/poisoning by me) like this old one. :)

“Erosion”
http://johnbdigital.com/macro/erosion.jpg
Click for Specs (http://johnbdigital.com/macro/erosion.htm)

[JEC]

Any little creature in front of my lens is safe in its natural environment, and their is a certain sport in mingling within inches of the bees,wasps and other bugs that can bite and sting.
Spiders however (especially those big hairy ones), are taking their lives in their eight hairy little hands when they enter my house uninvited.

[gjl711]

...I am guilty though of sometimes baiting bugs with honey esp ants :)

Overall I think most macroshooters are much kinder to bugs than the average person - we reach for a camera instead of a fly swat or can of insectacide and often trap bugs in the house and release them outside rather than kill them.

Brian V.I have caught bugs and put them in a 10 gal aquarium I set up as a terrarium and baiting is perfectly acceptable in my book, but i do not like killing them, nor do I. In fact, I've trained the family to not do away with the spiders but catch them or call me :)

[Greg_C]

I agree 100% with Brian, a lot of the fun is find and shooting things in their natural environment. Learning to hunt and shoot things in their environment in your own back yard sets you up for visits to Botanical Gardens, Forests and Parks where must do no harm.

[Lester Wareham]

Just wondering something. Do you guys shoot your insects alive or dead? I was under the impression of live shooting. I, personally, would rather just photograph the insects without harming them. But I ran across these two links through another discussion here and they make it sound like it's common practice to shot dead insects.

http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7279

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7122


They talk about freezing, dispatching, keeping insects in the fridge, etc. First I've heard of any of this. They also mention capture insect for shooting, do you guys do that? Or just shoot them in their natural environment?

I have heard myself of some photographers using a fridge to slow them down a bit, even a fairly successful professional wildlife photographer suggesting this.

I strongly object to such things. Although it is claimed this does them no harm, it must cost the insect energy and reduce their opportunity to feed or find a mate.

This to my mind is completely against responsible wildlife photography. If the subject was a mammal or bird such interference would most likely be illegal here in the UK. For some insects it can be illegal also if it is a rare protected species.

Personally, I prefer to shoot insects where they are found with disturbing them at all if possible. Maximal disturbance might be to turn a leaf over or hold it steady.

The only time I photograph an insect "in studio" (actually the utility room), is if I find the said insect in the house. It is then release to as far as I can guess a safe environment so it has a chance.

Dead, or chilled insects are likely to make poor subjects in my mind, the positions looking wrong.

[Madweasel]

I too only photograph live insects and as much as possible in their natural environment where I find them. But sometimes, I might move them to a slightly better position, depending on circumstances. I have occasionally put them in a 'studio' environment for a shot, either in a representation of their natural surroundings, or just on a plain card for a more 'portrait' effect. Once I chilled an insect for about 3 minutes in the fridge (i.e. a few degrees above freezing), to restrain it from flying off - I took the pictures quickly and then took the insect outside to warm up again - but I was flamed on here for doing that. It is common advice to photograph insects early in the morning when they are chilled and won't move about. In my opinion this is no different from the effect of a couple of minutes in the fridge, in fact it must slow them down more, because it can be several hours at similar or even lower temperatures. I can see the moral difference that some might point out, that the insect has no choice when out in the cold, whereas I have inflicted the cold in the fridge. Clearly we each draw the line at our own place. I do not believe I harmed the insect, and would certainly never kill one for photography. My line is between those two places.

[msclman99]

John_B, that's a pretty cool and pretty gross shot at the same time. I like it!

And as for the OP, I've only shot live insects. I don't see why you'd want to catch and shoot them, that's not any fun!

[Lester Wareham]

I too only photograph live insects and as much as possible in their natural environment where I find them. But sometimes, I might move them to a slightly better position, depending on circumstances. I have occasionally put them in a 'studio' environment for a shot, either in a representation of their natural surroundings, or just on a plain card for a more 'portrait' effect. Once I chilled an insect for about 3 minutes in the fridge (i.e. a few degrees above freezing), to restrain it from flying off - I took the pictures quickly and then took the insect outside to warm up again - but I was flamed on here for doing that. It is common advice to photograph insects early in the morning when they are chilled and won't move about. In my opinion this is no different from the effect of a couple of minutes in the fridge, in fact it must slow them down more, because it can be several hours at similar or even lower temperatures. I can see the moral difference that some might point out, that the insect has no choice when out in the cold, whereas I have inflicted the cold in the fridge. Clearly we each draw the line at our own place. I do not believe I harmed the insect, and would certainly never kill one for photography. My line is between those two places.

I understand your point that putting the insect in the fridge at +5C is a similar temperature to a cool night.

However the difference is this interferes with its natural feeding and mating opportunities. Some insects care for young to some extent also. My conclusion from this is it must have an negative impact of the insects fitness in a Darwinian sense, even if this is small.

I agree this is probably less critical with an insect compared to say a bird or small mammal, most of which more finally balanced calorific budgets; in-fact dehydration may be more of a limit for insects.

[hobbes2112]

I shoot dead bugs for practice but I don't kill them to get the shots.

I figure, they are dead anyway...no harm in that.

[pturton]

We kill mosquitoes with a baseball bat in Marshville. Sometimes I take their picture first;-)

Seriously though, frozen and dead insects seem to lose the look of life and are only good for focus and lighting practice. Most insects are welcome subjects but mosquitoes and house flies, both of which carry disease get killed in my house as do the plague of ants. Outdoors, insects are are safe unless they bite me.

[Madweasel]

Forgot to mention earwigs. I'll kill them where ever I find them.
Why?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Got to agree with Lester etc.. a Wildlife photographer should strive to leave the world we capture as undisturbed as humanly possible.
Killing our subjects is both 100% contradictory to this basic precept, but it is the utmost of human arrogance.

Try and look outside the "ew it's a bug" box, and apply the same rules we'd use for other subjects..
Would we kill football player to force a better shot out of him? A Bride?
Of course not, the idea would be just plain ludicrous if it weren't at first so horrific.

Looking at it from this standpoint, the question need not even be asked,. it simply should not be done.

( look again at Lester's Avatar folks! )



Lastly, I don;t think you get good photos either,. I recall a Popular photo magazine printing an really horrible article "how to" where the author was shooting dead bugs, bugs he'd killed. What a horrible lesson, totally irresponsible IMHO to publish, but from a photog standpoint, anyone with even the least amount of observation skills could see that the insects were dead.. the skin on it's eyes was pealing off etc..
Terrible terrible photos.

[drh681]

Yes:
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm211/drh681/explorational/090503__yard_76_web.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm211/drh681/explorational/deadbug_1009_01web.jpg
:D

[gjl711]

Yes:..
:D
Is the second one sleeping?

[rjlittlefield]

Hello! I'm new to your community here at P.O.T.N. But I wrote several of the postings that Namerifrats references at photomacrography.net. Perhaps I can help put those in context.

First, it's important to recognize that not all photographers of insects are "wildlife photographers". At least five of the people I work with are biologists who are using high magnification stacking as a way to produce high quality reference illustrations. One of them is working on identification keys for tabanid flies of eastern Canada, another on land snails of New Zealand, and so on. Trying to use the ethics of one group in the other group's work, either way, would produce some pretty strange effects.

Second, I think it's interesting to notice that the whole issue is not so much one of rational ethics as it is of perfectly valid emotional reaction. If rational ethics were all that's involved, it would be difficult to make a case for being concerned about the one insect in front of the camera, and not the tens of insects on the windshield of my car, or the thousands that got killed or displaced the last time I mowed the lawn, or the millions that got either pesticided or biologically excluded to grow the grain and vegetables in my vegan sandwich. (We won't even think about chicken salad.)

On the other hand, I completely agree that there seems to be something rather perverse about killing an insect just to make a pretty picture of it. Imagine a character in a movie saying something like "I loved this thing so much that I killed it and brought it home so I could keep it with me always and always." I don't know about you, but I think I would take that line as suggesting a character who's a bit deranged if not actually dangerous.

So there's the conflict that I confront. No matter how reviled a bug might be in normal context, if I make an attractive photograph of it, it becomes an object of attraction, and then I feel sympathy and sorrow for it.

This presents some very interesting situations. I am obligated by local law to kill the fruit flies that would otherwise make maggots in my backyard cherries. No problem, there are sprays to do that job, and everyone around appreciates the effort. (There are huge economic penalties if even a single maggot turns up in a commercial harvest. Besides, they spoil the cherries.) But if I kill one of the flies carefully and personally, and make even a decent clinical photograph of it (http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5134, second image), then suddenly it turns from villain to victim.

I think this is a fascinating effect, in large part because I feel it too.

So what to do, what to do? One approach I use is to keep a lookout for "found specimens" -- bugs that turn up dead but still fresh enough to photograph. The spiderwebs in my windows are handy for this. It seems acceptable to salvage a freshly killed lacewing whose head is still intact. The spider, of course, ends up short on his next meal, but it's the lacewing and not the spider who gets the sympathy in this case. When I photograph the spider, it's the other way around.

Complicated, eh? And fascinating, at least to me. Something to ponder, perhaps, the next time I'm eating lunch on the lawn thinking about photography.

--Rik

[macro junkie]

i never shoot dead ones..i have mayby 2 times in the hole time i been doing macro(2 years)

[Tendy]

Hello! I'm new to your community here at P.O.T.N. But I wrote several of the postings that Namerifrats references at photomacrography.net. Perhaps I can help put those in context.

First, it's important to recognize that not all photographers of insects are "wildlife photographers". At least five of the people I work with are biologists who are using high magnification stacking as a way to produce high quality reference illustrations. One of them is working on identification keys for tabanid flies of eastern Canada, another on land snails of New Zealand, and so on. Trying to use the ethics of one group in the other group's work, either way, would produce some pretty strange effects.

Second, I think it's interesting to notice that the whole issue is not so much one of rational ethics as it is of perfectly valid emotional reaction. If rational ethics were all that's involved, it would be difficult to make a case for being concerned about the one insect in front of the camera, and not the tens of insects on the windshield of my car, or the thousands that got killed or displaced the last time I mowed the lawn, or the millions that got either pesticided or biologically excluded to grow the grain and vegetables in my vegan sandwich. (We won't even think about chicken salad.)

On the other hand, I completely agree that there seems to be something rather perverse about killing an insect just to make a pretty picture of it. Imagine a character in a movie saying something like "I loved this thing so much that I killed it and brought it home so I could keep it with me always and always." I don't know about you, but I think I would take that line as suggesting a character who's a bit deranged if not actually dangerous.

So there's the conflict that I confront. No matter how reviled a bug might be in normal context, if I make an attractive photograph of it, it becomes an object of attraction, and then I feel sympathy and sorrow for it.

This presents some very interesting situations. I am obligated by local law to kill the fruit flies that would otherwise make maggots in my backyard cherries. No problem, there are sprays to do that job, and everyone around appreciates the effort. (There are huge economic penalties if even a single maggot turns up in a commercial harvest. Besides, they spoil the cherries.) But if I kill one of the flies carefully and personally, and make even a decent clinical photograph of it (http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5134, second image), then suddenly it turns from villain to victim.

I think this is a fascinating effect, in large part because I feel it too.

So what to do, what to do? One approach I use is to keep a lookout for "found specimens" -- bugs that turn up dead but still fresh enough to photograph. The spiderwebs in my windows are handy for this. It seems acceptable to salvage a freshly killed lacewing whose head is still intact. The spider, of course, ends up short on his next meal, but it's the lacewing and not the spider who gets the sympathy in this case. When I photograph the spider, it's the other way around.

Complicated, eh? And fascinating, at least to me. Something to ponder, perhaps, the next time I'm eating lunch on the lawn thinking about photography.

--Rik

Hey Rik nice to see you here! I'm Cyclops on t'other forum. I personally would never kill something to photograph it.

[mikerault]

Oh my, what would Mr. Audubon say? Oh, that's right, he killed everything before painting and sketching it....

[wickerprints]

Cordyceps fungus -- watch this fascinating video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8

[gjl711]

Cordyceps fungus -- watch this fascinating video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8
WOW, some fantastic photography.

[reneethomas]

The only time I have photographed a dead bug was when one accidentally got in the house and died. The only reason I would photograph it dead is to get an id to help the boys and I learn more about our environment. I always find it sad when I find these dead critters and I cannot imagine people killing them just to photograph them.

[macro junkie]

i catch them..trap em in a tub or 1ft x1ft netting..i then leave it out side and shoot it in the morning around 5 or 6 am..its how i got this series of shots.when there cold they dont fly off..i only do this if im after a insect and i cant get the shots im after..its sort of a last resort

full size - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2491/3838654275_f812b5c1ac_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2491/3838654275_fa1474ef8c.jpg

[roofero]

Nope. I never kill bugs. I have been known to give them some very harsh warnings though.

Roofero.

[factorgrimm]

Personally, I think it is completely ridiculous to waste angst over the notion of killing an insect. People swat flies and mosquitos like there's no tomorrow, but they are going to get upset over "pretty" insects? Please.

Having said that, I think it is far more compelling to shoot live insects, and much more challenging. So that's what it is for me. It would take a lot of convincing to tell me that the life of say, a leafhopper or stink bug is more important than the life of a mosquito or house fly. It's not that much more difficult to shoot live insects, so just go for it and you will get good results.

[LynC]

I guess I fall in between the extremes on this subject. If it is a mosquito, fly, poisonous spider or roach invading my home they will be DOA. Much to my wife’s dismay I catch any harmless spiders and put them outside before she sprays half a can of insecticide on it. Personally I can't imagine taking pictures of a dead insect unless there was a special reason and I certainly will not kill a beneficial one for sure. The results just don't look "natural" from what I have seen.

[GRD]

As I have become quickly hooked on macro because of this forum and only being aboard about 3 months now, this thread just confirms what I have been seeing with macro shooters and insects. That is, the pride and complete respect for the insect world by enjoying these incredible creatures with a camera and not for the sport of killing them.

I myself have never really enjoyed the killing of our wonderful wildlife on this planet. I have done hunting and all of course when I was growing up, but even then I did not really enjoy the kill. I no longer participate in hunting with the purpose of killing. I now use the camera for the hunt without the killing.

As I have become more and more involved close-up with the insect world, I cannot possibly even consider killing these beautiful creatures we have been given here on this planet.

To see all those here take these incredible pictures of all these insects and enjoy them with the camera itself, is a pleasure for me to be a part of here at this forum.

It has also been an eye opener and education for me to enjoy this small world that surrounds us daily.

Hopefully as I gain better understanding with the camera and its ability to take these macro shots, I will also be able to show this insect world close-up with the beauty it deserves.

[LynC]

As I have become quickly hooked on macro because of this forum and only being aboard about 3 months now, this thread just confirms what I have been seeing with macro shooters and insects. That is, the pride and complete respect for the insect world by enjoying these incredible creatures with a camera and not for the sport of killing them.

I myself have never really enjoyed the killing of our wonderful wildlife on this planet. I have done hunting and all of course when I was growing up, but even then I did not really enjoy the kill. I no longer participate in hunting with the purpose of killing. I now use the camera for the hunt without the killing.

As I have become more and more involved close-up with the insect world, I cannot possibly even consider killing these beautiful creatures we have been given here on this planet.

To see all those here take these incredible pictures of all these insects and enjoy them with the camera itself, is a pleasure for me to be a part of here at this forum.

It has also been an eye opener and education for me to enjoy this small world that surrounds us daily.

Hopefully as I gain better understanding with the camera and its ability to take these macro shots, I will also be able to show this insect world close-up with the beauty it deserves.

I can relate to you very well! In my teens and 20's I loved to hunt and was very successful at it, perhaps too successful. It didn't take long to realize the thrill of the hunt was in the chase. So I started hunting with a muzzle loader. That didn't last long either and I switched to a bow. After a bit I decided I preferred competitive rifle shooting which I did for many years and I was very successful at it too. Then I burned out on that and have picked back upon photography which I had done off and on for many years. It is a newly rediscovered challenge which I can immerse myself again. A new challenge with a great amount to learn. :D
Lyn
Edited to add: If I can become as good "shooting" a camera as a rifle, I just might become good enough to approach some of the wonderful pictures I see posted here! (Yea, right...maybe in my dreams!)

[JBravo920]

I found a couple of dead bee's in the house that me and my girlfriend are building the other day. I picked one up and put it on the counter for some shots, but I've never purposely killed an insect just to get a shot. My girlfriend is still extremely freaked out by bugs, but I now have her screaming at me to come get it, instead of her just stomping on it and killing it. If I can, I'll get some shots. If not, I'll just release it outside. I've found that most bugs don't mess with you if you don't mess with them. I only have the Canon 60mm macro, so my working distance isn't the best. But I've found that bee's, flies, moths, wasps, hoverflies, etc... will let you get pretty close as long as you don't touch them. They don't want to hurt you any more than you want to hurt them. Dragonflies and darterflies I can not seem to get close enough too though. I need to get like the 150mm or 180mm macro soon I think. Haha.
Personal opinion on the posted topic though...I would never harm an insect just to get a shot. Respect what you shoot, and it will hopefully respect you back.

[Madweasel]

For things like dragonflies, you might find your 50-250 does the job. I often use my 70-200 for them.

[Dalantech]

Add me to the list of people who do not refrigerate or freeze subjects -and I shoot critter in all kinds of weather conditions (cool mornings, heat of the day, etc.). You just have to take the time to learn their habits and quirks. I'm not above cutting the perch a critter is on, putting it in a wood clamp, and moving the whole rig to a comfortable place to shoot:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3511815185_274e19bd62_b.jpg

Baiting critters with syrup or honey also works -plenty of nondestructive ways to take a photo :)

[Tendy]

Nice to see you here Dalantech (I'm one of your watchers on deviantart)

[Dalantech]

Thanks Tendy :)

[gjl711]

... I'm not above cutting the perch a critter is on, putting it in a wood clamp, and moving the whole rig to a comfortable place to shoot:How the heck did you snip that without the critter flying away. :)

[Dalantech]

How the heck did you snip that without the critter flying away. :)

Early in the day -the critter is still trying to wake up :)

[Warl0rd]

that or superglue ? :)

[gjl711]

Early in the day -the critter is still trying to wake up :)
I've gone out early to shoot mantis as they are really slow, but they don't fly, at least not easily.

[dsvilko]

I know this is an old thread but as I was about to ask the people what do they think on this subject and was planing to open a new thread, decided to do the search first and got here.
I have been shooting macro photos for almost 10 years, until recently with extremely low-end compact digicams and DIY macro lens. I have always enjoyed the thrill of 'hunting' and 'stalking' the insects in their natural environment and this is how I took all my photos and this was the style of shooting I was always advocating.
Then not long ago I discovered the fascinating world of high-magnification stacked macro photography. Unfortunately this is not something you can do with live subject so I have started freezing a few insects every now and then so I could photograph them. This killing part is not something I am indifferent about and certainly do not enjoy it but the final photos almost always turn up great! I understand that I have basically killed the insect that otherwise didn't have to die simply to make a nice photo. It sounds terrible. Paradoxically it sounds worse then when we have to exterminate millions of insects for some reason. Apparently the same irrational reasoning applies to people. It has been repeatably shown that we have a much stronger emotional reaction to the suffering of one individual than to the suffering of a larger group of people. The larger the group becomes the less we seem to mind.
With that in mind, is killing one insect to take a photo really worse than spending the day in the 'wild' photographing the insects in their natural environment? Just consider how many hundreds or thousands of insects you killed beneath your feet during your 'beautiful day in nature'. You can argue that it's completely different because it wasn't intentional but that is not exactly true. You knew this would happen. The insects died for your enjoyment. You could have decided not to go out and thus save the insects but you decided that their death, as unfortunate as it is, is worth it. I also don't own a car so have probably killed less insects in my life than most of you. Does that make me a better person? You again trade the lives of a few insects for the convenience of travelling by car. If you took the train or the bus you would have been responsible for far fewer deaths.

Insects are everywhere and we are all guilty of killing them so our lives would be (usually in some completely trivial way) a bit better. When we are extremely careful to photograph a butterfly without in any way interfering with it's life while at the same time standing on a hundred dead ants, bugs, worms and other insects, it's all about making ourselves feel good and proud, not about the insects. Let's not kid ourselves. People have no problem with killing insects. It's only when you have a bad form of being so obvious that they cry out in outrage. The appearance of 'decency' is all that is is required.

[canonloader]

As one with a well developed sense of empathy, I don't like to kill bugs, even the microscopic ones I shoot these days.

On the other hand, there are companies that deal in dead and preserved bugs that unless you were to go to Borneo or Sumatra, or some uninhabited island in the South Pacific, you would never, ever see, let alone get to photograph. And maybe not then, unless you could climb a 100 foot coconut tree.

There are whole cottage industries selling pins, special thread and mounting media to mount these long dead insects to for realistic poses. There are chemicals and dozens of websites to describe and teach you how to boil, preserve and mount your prized possessions. I have seen some of the images shot and stacked using this technique, and they are equal to or better than any live bug, and unless the artist tells you how he did it, you would never know.

Do you honestly think National Geographic only shoots live subjects? LOL

[LV Moose]

I only shoot dead bugs when a live bug is involved ;)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1370/5099148315_366d11c105_b.jpg

[canonloader]

Is that a tear drop I see? :)

[LV Moose]

Is that a tear drop I see? :)

Yeah, he feels bad :(

Actually, it's "juice" from the spider.

[canonloader]

I thought it might be juice, but it's so clear. Maybe poison from the gland?

[LV Moose]

I thought it might be juice, but it's so clear. Maybe poison from the gland?

The mantis chewed off a couple of legs before going to town on the body. The liquid came from the stumps.

[dsvilko]

As one with a well developed sense of empathy, I don't like to kill bugs, even the microscopic ones I shoot these days.

Well I don't think anyone here would say he enjoys killing bugs but as I see it we all kill bugs regardless of whether we shoot live or dead subjects. It could probably be even argued that someone who spends a few hours shooting live insects in nature has unknowingly killed more insects than someone who quickly collects a few insects to be killed by freezing or by laurel leaves and spends the rest of the day shooting in the studio. It seems that killing insects is acceptable as long as it's not 'too obvious'. After considering this a bit I now find the whole "I would NEVER kill an insect just so I can get a better shot!" philosophy a bit hypocritical. There is no rational reason why deliberately killing one specific insect would be morally worse than killing hundreds of random insects beneath our feet (fully aware of this fact) while trying not to interfere with our one chosen subject.

[canonloader]

I would NEVER kill an insect just so I can get a better shot!
Every time you drive a car, you kill dozens of bugs. Just get out and lift the hood if you don't believe. Look at your radiator. LOL

[Lester Wareham]

.......
Then not long ago I discovered the fascinating world of high-magnification stacked macro photography. Unfortunately this is not something you can do with live subject so I have started freezing a few insects every now and then so I could photograph them. This killing part is not something I am indifferent about and certainly do not enjoy it but the final photos almost always turn up great! I understand that I have basically killed the insect that otherwise didn't have to die simply to make a nice photo. It sounds terrible. Paradoxically it sounds worse then when we have to exterminate millions of insects for some reason. Apparently the same irrational reasoning applies to people. It has been repeatably shown that we have a much stronger emotional reaction to the suffering of one individual than to the suffering of a larger group of people. The larger the group becomes the less ....

Whilst I can't dispute that every day human activity kills many insects I don't think it is necessery to chill or kill to focus stack, many here focus stack live insects in their natural environment handheld.

Dead or chilled insects generally don't look convincing IMHO.

Additionaly too much stacking does not look realistic photographically, my feeling is there should be some parts oof to look like a photograph, so I often find that 3 or 4 frames is plenty for what I want, don't think I have ever used more than 7 or 8 frames in a stack.

[agiaco]

Overall I think most macroshooters are much kinder to bugs than the average person - we reach for a camera instead of a fly swat or can of insectacide and often trap bugs in the house and release them outside rather than kill them.

Brian V.

Exactly my sentiments.

[dsvilko]

Exactly my sentiments.

I don't want the appear overly cynical but I would say that the typical macro photographer enjoys thinking of himself as kind to insects. In reality the kindest thing you can do for the insects is to never set foot in anything that can even remotely be called nature. This would, of course, be completely opposite of how we who love the nature behave. I don't want anyone to feel bad and I am certainly not advocating walking only on pavement, I'm just trying to explore the morality of sacrificing insects for our hobby, when considered rationally and without hypocrisy. I want to have somewhere to link to if someone gets appalled that I froze a mosquito to photograph it. :) I also try 'rescuing' trapped insects in my house but on a rational level I understand that it's more about me feeling good about it because at the same time I also kill a lot of insects without giving it a second thought, as we all do (and it often could have been avoided).

[canonloader]

I grew up on a farm in the 40's and 50's, and I scoff and give the one finger salute to scientists in general, and those in particular that tried to tell us that everything non human were just dumb animals, did not think and had no feelings. From cows and zoo animals down to the microbes on our skin and in our water. It was OK to kill them because they have no feelings.

I knew what crap that was from pre kindergarten and now at the other end of my life, I see that the whole scientific community that tries to explain what intelligence, feelings and awareness is, is nothing but a mud fence put up by stupid mud people. Just put your eye to the microscope and look at the life in a drop of water and tell me those little things are not aware of their own lives, don't feel pain and approaching death, just like we do. I guarantee you, you just can't do it, you will even begin to question everything you thought you knew. ;)

[realjax]

I shoot them either way. Dead or alive.
And here's a shocking fact: I do not loose any sleep over having placed a bug in my freezer.

[canonloader]

Actually, dying of hypothermia, at least for people, is supposed to be one of the easier ways to check out. ;)

Still, I would like to go in my sleep and wake up on a cloud hanging just over the beach in Miami.

[dsvilko]

I grew up on a farm in the 40's and 50's, and I scoff and give the one finger salute to scientists in general,

I apologize for potentially starting an off-topic flame war but as a physics teacher I simply can't let this slide. I really feel depressed where we are going, as a civilisation, when people like you can show open contempt for scientists on a internet forum about digital cameras. People give thanks to gods for their health and all the wonderful things they have and are able to do in their lives while portraying the true heroes who made it all possible as heartless, emotionless killers. No hypocrisy there.

I see that the whole scientific community that tries to explain what intelligence, feelings and awareness is, is nothing but a mud fence put up by stupid mud people. Just put your eye to the microscope and look at the life in a drop of water and tell me those little things are not aware of their own lives, don't feel pain and approaching death, just like we do.Who needs reason and rationality when we all know that human intuition and 'feelings' are the most perfect things in the whole wide universe. You don't need to do any research - just listen to your hearth!
I wonder how many people are really loosing sleep over killing millions each time they wash their hands. The same people that will tell you that all life is sacred and equally valuable.
Our intuition tells us that killing one specifically chosen insect is horrible while killing thousands just walking about is simply unfortunate - so it must be true. Only someone whithout empathy could reason otherwise. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were trying to say but this is how it came across.

[Japers]

I shoot all of my insects alive.. I have captured them, moved them to a better location for a quick shoot, then later returned them to where I found them.. But I prefer to shoot them doing what they do naturally and I can't do that when they're dead. ;)

[canonloader]

I really feel depressed where we are going, as a civilisation
I guess you do, if you can take what I said that wrong. Don't talk to an unbeliever about god either, it's a waste of time. I totally believe in science and natural selection. I just don't believe, because people like you tell me to, that all scientists know what the truth really is, or speak the truth, even if they do know it. The act of putting yourself above anyone else is proof of my claim.

The truth is, scientists can be complete idiots, traitors to their own species, country or tribe, good or evil, and, they put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else. Education doesn't make everybody smarter, better or a more capable person. In fact, given the state of world affairs, and the fact that only the "smart" people have been running it since forever, I'd say just the opposite is true. ;)

[dsvilko]

I guess you do, if you can take what I said that wrong. Don't talk to an unbeliever about god either, it's a waste of time. I totally believe in science and natural selection. I just don't believe, because people like you tell me to, that all sientists know what the truth really is, or speak the truth, even if they do know it. The act of putting yourself above anyone else is proof of my claim.
Ok then I have misunderstood what you were trying to say but from my perspective it seemed very clear. I don't think you could find a scientist that would tell you that what we know is absolutely true with no possibility of a mistake. Finding mistakes and overturning their own theories is what scientists do. Just because nothing is absolutely certain, that doesn't mean that all ways of finding the truth are equally valid. Science is simply by far the best method we have. And I do believe that as a group, even if there are a few outliers, scientists value, respect and share the truth more than any other group of people.
The truth is, scientists can be complete idiots, traitors to their own species, country or tribe, good or evil, and, they put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.What you are saying is that they are human. Have you are reason or proof that they are worse that the average because from the scientists I know or have met they certainly seem better. What would you say if I tried to argue that I despise all soldiers because they probably include above average percentage of people who enjoy violence and even licensed killing of other people (which is in all probability true). How would that make the honest and peaceful majority of solders who put their lives on the line to protest other feel?
Education doesn't make everybody smarter, better or a more capable person. In fact, given the state of world affairs, and the fact that only the "smart" people have been running it since forever, I'd say just the opposite is true. ;)Considering that a scientist is about equally likely to get elected as an open atheist (is US, at least), which smart people were you thinking of?

[canonloader]

What you are saying is that they are human.
Among other things.

It's no secret, that scientists can no longer do the da Vinci thing. You know, study on their own, invent everything they need. go where the facts lead The only scientists you will see today, were taught by the establishment, are paid by the establishment, and do the establishments work, in the direction the establishment whats them to go? And, as we have seen recently, lie about their findings to better themselves.

Would you call that science? How does this make them better than the rest of us unscientific people?

What would you say if I tried to argue that I despise all soldiers because they probably include above average percentage of people who enjoy violence and even licensed killing of other people (which is in all probability true).
I would say then, that you missed the point again. People that are naturally violent and enjoy it, make the best soldiers. That is, if you believe that the whole point of fighting a war is to win it.

Considering that a scientist is about equally likely to get elected as an open atheist (is US, at least), which smart people were you thinking of?
Wow. LOL I rest my case.

[gjl711]

Time to cool the rhetoric and get back to the topic, shooting bugs.

[agiaco]

I don't want the appear overly cynical but I would say that the typical macro photographer enjoys thinking of himself as kind to insects. In reality the kindest thing you can do for the insects is to never set foot in anything that can even remotely be called nature. This would, of course, be completely opposite of how we who love the nature behave. I don't want anyone to feel bad and I am certainly not advocating walking only on pavement, I'm just trying to explore the morality of sacrificing insects for our hobby, when considered rationally and without hypocrisy. I want to have somewhere to link to if someone gets appalled that I froze a mosquito to photograph it. :) I also try 'rescuing' trapped insects in my house but on a rational level I understand that it's more about me feeling good about it because at the same time I also kill a lot of insects without giving it a second thought, as we all do (and it often could have been avoided).

Well first off, I agreed with Brian that typically macro photographers are kinder to insects than others. Does that mean we always go out of our way to save an insect trapped in our homes, or leave the wasp nests all over our house? Of course not. Even though we are "invading" insect habitats and homes to photograph them, it's not like most macro shooters are disrupting everything around the area.

[canonloader]

Have you ever seen the drawer after drawer of bugs on pins in even small local museums? No, it's not the macro shooter that does the most harm. LOL In fact, the really good ones, especially those who get publeished, are probably one of the best forces for good for bugs than anything I can think of. :)

[Miki G]

I don't make a deliberate decision when I go out to photograph bugs that I am going to kill some, but inadvertantly, I probably do kill a few (or many) of them accidentily. Killing an insect by freezing just to get a photo is morally wrong just as shooting an animal (with a gun) just for sport & leaving it to rot is morally wrong.

[LV Moose]

... Killing an insect by freezing just to get a photo is morally wrong just as shooting an animal (with a gun) just for sport & leaving it to rot is morally wrong.

I see different levels of moral “wrongness.” I don’t feel the same contempt for someone who kills a centipede in order to photograph it as I do someone who spears a manatee for fun or kills an elk and lets it rot. A lot has to do with the level of the life form… higher-order animals compared to lower-order, which admittedly is a somewhat subjective line.

Personally, I don’t kill bugs to photograph them. But I’m not gonna get my banana hammock in a twist over someone who does. They’re bugs, not horses, not dogs, not people.

If I spray the roaches or black-widows around my house, is it “morally better” than killing one for a shot?

[Miki G]

I see different levels of moral “wrongness.” I don’t feel the same contempt for someone who kills a centipede in order to photograph it as I do someone who spears a manatee for fun or kills an elk and lets it rot. A lot has to do with the level of the life form… higher-order animals compared to lower-order, which admittedly is a somewhat subjective line.

Personally, I don’t kill bugs to photograph them. But I’m not gonna get my banana hammock in a twist over someone who does. They’re bugs, not horses, not dogs, not people.

If I spray the roaches or black-widows around my house, is it “morally better” than killing one for a shot?

I understand that sometimes it is necessary to control animal/insect numbers in our daily lives, but there is a difference in pest control & in merely killing just for pleasure. I won't lose sleep over someone killing bugs for study / photography either, but just feel that it's a waste of life, if it could be studied / photographed without killing it.

[dsvilko]

@canonloader
Our discussion has gone so off-topic that it wouldn't be polite to continue it in this forum. Even though I usually stop a discussion if I smell a conspiracy theorist, I am willing to continue the argument through email. I can be reached on gmail with the same username.

I don't make a deliberate decision when I go out to photograph bugs that I am going to kill some, but inadvertantly, I probably do kill a few (or many) of them accidentily. Killing an insect by freezing just to get a photo is morally wrong just as shooting an animal (with a gun) just for sport & leaving it to rot is morally wrong.

This is something I must strongly disagree with. For me, there is a big difference between killing an animal (be it a mammal or an insect) simply for the fun of killing it and killing it as a necessary step of accomplishing some other goal. I will never understand the hunting for sport.
On the other hand, I see no difference in someone collecting and killing 100 insects that landed on his window, for the purpose of photographing them in a way that would not be possible with a live specimens and some other photographer deciding that killing 100 bugs under his feet is an acceptable loss for a fun day in nature shooting live insects in a way that would not be possible from his house. In both cases the net loss of insect life is the same (if this is something we at all care about) and in both cases the deaths could have easily been avoided - we are directly responsible and fully aware of that fact. The motivation is also the same - in both cases deaths are a direct consequence of us wanting to take some nice photos. The main difference is simply in the ease of acting all innocent - on the surface appearance of decency. It simply 'sounds better' if you say that you always shoot live insects without disturbing them. Basically what you are doing is giving the people around you the permission not to think about the necessary killing and they will love you for it (even though both you and they know the truth). On the other hand when you make the necessity of the killing explicit, their moral intuition will tell them that they have to be appalled. This is a good indication how often morality and ethics have nothing to do with the actual happiness and suffering of living thing but only with some 'intuitive' appearance of decency. A completely different emotional reaction to two situations that are in every important respect the same.

[realjax]

Exactly.

[canonloader]

I think I am going to blame it all on old man winter who kills more bugs in one season than I have in my whole life. :mrgreen:

[dsvilko]

I think I am going to blame it all on old man winter who kills more bugs in one season than I have in my whole life. :mrgreen:

We had a nice, warmish weather the last two weeks (with a matching increase in insect activity) and yesterday morning everything was white again. :( I normally like the snow but after pondering these questions for a bit I must confess a bit of joy is gone. We simply live long enough and die seldom enough (in modern times) that we are simply not equipped at thinking about death on such massive scales.

[canonloader]

In my family at least, we seem to be living about the same number of years. I'm only mid 60's now, but my grandparents and their parents all made it into the mid 80's. I feel like I can make it too. But, I am a boomer, born within months of the end of the war in Japan. So overall, my generation of Americans had it easy. But all 4 of my grandparents had a fair number of brothers and sisters, and kids of their own. Neither family though, raised more than 2 or 3 to adulthood. Diseases of the day mostly, took them off, and most of the men all went to war, so they had a very hard life, compared to mine. And the family secret is, all of the ones I had the good luck to know, were a bit wacky, but not violent. Just weird.

So yeah, you live long enough, things take on a different hue. Maybe they were not wacky, maybe I was just too inexperienced to see true maturity.

[botw]

Interesting thread. I have no moral qualms about killing insects, but don't go out of my way to do so, and have not done so to photograph one. One large and important exception is that I am required by marital law to kill any and all stink bugs that periodically invade our house. Sadly, I have no interest in photographing those ugly little buggers.

[ziggy25]

I have never killed any insect just for the sake of being able to take a picture of it. I might move it to a location that would make it easier for me to photograph it but would never do anything to harm it.

[jemanner]

I have never killed any insect just for the sake of being able to take a picture of it. I might move it to a location that would make it easier for me to photograph it but would never do anything to harm it.

Ditto

[chrisa]

My daughter called me the other day to tell me that there was a huge spider in her garage and wanted me to come over to take pictures of it.

[gjl711]

My daughter called me the other day to tell me that there was a huge spider in her garage and wanted me to come over to take pictures of it.I have my kids (and wife) trained similarly. Bugs are for pictures, not killing. :)

[slwx]

I would never kill a bug to take a photo... To me it's all part of it. I've only started dslr recently, and I just think, I could put a jumping spider in the fridge or freezer to get a picture, or I could exercise patience and shoot an active one in it's natural environment? Which is going to benefit my photography? It can be frustrating as hell, when I take my camera out, some things are so hard to get close to, a lot if things get away, but that makes it all the more satisfying when you do get the shot!

I'm biassed on that anyway, as I've been keeping bugs as pets for a few years now. Obviously when I shoot those, they are not in their natural environment, but an environment that simulates it as much as it can!

[dsvilko]

I would never kill a bug to take a photo...

Have you read the entire thread? You knowingly kill hundreds of insects each time you set foot in nature. Does our ability to feign ignorance of this fact really absolve us of all moral responsibility?
If this is something that happens with each step we take outside of a pavement, can we really say that it's just an unhappy accident and that we have no control over it and so are not responsible in any way?
You go out of your way not to disturb one particular insect you have made a connection with while standing on countless dead ones. To me it certainly seems it's all about making ourselves feel good and not about protecting anything.
Now, we could argue which way of shooting is more fun or challenging but that would be a completely different discussion. From my experience it's a lot harder and more challenging to make a good focus-stack of a dead insect than it is to make a one-shot of a living one. Both can be fun in different ways.

[slwx]

Have you read the entire thread? You knowingly kill hundreds of insects each time you set foot in nature. Does our ability to feign ignorance of this fact really absolve us of all moral responsibility?
If this is something that happens with each step we take outside of a pavement, can we really say that it's just an unhappy accident and that we have no control over it and so are not responsible in any way?
You go out of your way not to disturb one particular insect you have made a connection with while standing on countless dead ones. To me it certainly seems it's all about making ourselves feel good and not about protecting anything.
Now, we could argue which way of shooting is more fun or challenging but that would be a completely different discussion. From my experience it's a lot harder and more challenging to make a good focus-stack of a dead insect than it is to make a one-shot of a living one. Both can be fun in different ways.

I guess I phrased it wrong, I'm not gonna knowingly and deliberately kill a creature just to take a photo of it...

[dsvilko]

I guess I phrased it wrong, I'm not gonna knowingly and deliberately kill a creature just to take a photo of it...

But you are ok with knowingly and deliberately causing the death of thousands of insects so you can take a photo of one undisturbed insect? I simply see no difference. When I freeze an insect I am not killing it for the fun of it. It's an unfortunate necessity of me wanting to take a certain kind of photo. When you kill the insects beneath your feet you also see it as an unfortunate but unavoidable price that has to be paid for your photographic enjoyment. You could have stayed home - there is nothing unavoidable about it. Once we have decided that today is a nice day to take some photos, the fate of a few (thousand) insect was set.

[slwx]

But you are ok with knowingly and deliberately causing the death of thousands of insects so you can take a photo of one undisturbed insect? I simply see no difference. When I freeze an insect I am not killing it for the fun of it. It's an unfortunate necessity of me wanting to take a certain kind of photo. When you kill the insects beneath your feet you also see it as an unfortunate but unavoidable price that has to be paid for your photographic enjoyment. You could have stayed home - there is nothing unavoidable about it. Once we have decided that today is a nice day to take some photos, the fate of a few (thousand) insect was set.

I think "thousands" may be a bit of an exaggeration... But yes, bugs will get stepped on and killed, but my rabbits in the garden will be stepping on animals and killing them, anything bigger than a bug can step on it and kill it, and every time I leave the house I imagine something will get stepped on, whether it's for a leisure activity or going to work or something. But it is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can't keep my eyes on the ground all the time...

But what I am trying to say, is I'd never think "You look like you'd make a nice photo, come here so I can kill you!".

I do understand where you are coming from, and I hope you can see where I am coming from.

[canonloader]

Everything kills to live. Only humans worry about it. :mrgreen:

[dsvilko]

I do understand where you are coming from, and I hope you can see where I am coming from.

I do. I had precisely the same way of thinking for years. It's only been when I have been 'forced' to kill insects for deep-stacking experiments that I started thinking about it. That is exactly my point. Our actions are not driven by rationally considering what effect we have on our environment (insect lives in this case) but on the appearance of decency. On weather we feel good about ourselves.
As someone who extremely rarely has time to visit 'nature' and lately collects one or two insects a week to be frozen (from my apartment window), I think I cause a couple of orders of magnitude fewer insect deaths than an average macro photographer. Is this something we at all care about?
There are very few insects on the pavement so going to work (for most people) is not exactly the same as taking a stroll in the woods. We are not talking about a small difference here. Also remember that we are not talking about huge bugs (rare) but insect that can be photographed. If you would to examine the top few cm of soil under your feet you could easily find hundreds of insects - all of them highly likely to get injured under your weight. By deciding that you will go in the woods to take a few macro shots you have decided that all the deaths you will cause are perfectly acceptable. What I frankly find a bit hypocritical is when those same people say that they would _never_ kill a living thing to photograph it - wanting to say that they are somehow morally superior. Again, I really see no difference.
I can't avoid killing an insect for a 50-shot stack. You can't avoid killing insects to get to the one you want to photograph in it's natural environment. I could have decided not to do a focus-stack. You could have decided not to photograph an insect in nature but wait for it to land on your window.

[canonloader]

Between 1348 and 1350, fleas killed half the worlds human population. Do you think the fleas felt bad about that? :p

[dsvilko]

Everything kills to live. Only humans worry about it. :mrgreen:

:) Your comment is spot on!

[canonloader]

Looking at it from a human point of view, there are many predator species in the world, that kill to survive. Animals, fish, birds and humans, even microbes. But there are very few species that kill when they don't have to. Among them, humans and cats.

I recently bought a microscope to view the small microbes in water. It's a great hobby. I have found the same thing to be true in the microscopic world. Compared to the overall number of species, only a very few kill to survive, and I have seen none that kill just to kill. Most of the small life lives by eating algae or bacteria.

One thing is for sure though, everything kills something else by accident or design. It's just the way the world turns and it's a waste of time to worry about it.

[ziggy25]

People that kill insects just to photograph them only do it to little poor insects. You never see them going to Africa to kill a lion to bring it home for some photos. They never pick someone their own size :)

[coinnut]

One thing is for sure though, everything kills something else by accident or design. It's just the way the world turns and it's a waste of time to worry about it.
With the excitement of my first day of a new camera,
I don't even want to tell you what I did to an ant that wouldn't stay still :twisted:
Karma will get me though, just when I have a great shot of a bee going :shock:

[archer1960]

Looking at it from a human point of view, there are many predator species in the world, that kill to survive. Animals, fish, birds and humans, even microbes. But there are very few species that kill when they don't have to. Among them, humans and cats.

...



And occasionally wolves, though that's relatively rare in the wild.

[archer1960]

If it looks like an interesting picture, I'll take shots of already dead subjects, but don't kill them just in order to photograph them. I don't see anything wrong with refrigerating one in order to slow it down, and then releasing it alive, however.

[Crimzon]

I supose it comes down to an ethical debate. And not the ethics of the killing the insects part. Knowingly faking a photo and presenting it as real life.

I know it is done in other photography.... zoo shots passed off as wild Africa... or anywhere else. Nothing wrong with zoo shots..... except for passing them of as real. Some famous "nature shows" are guilty of using footage of zoos for "wildlife shots"

I saw a photo the other day on "imagekind" (but it doenst matter where, it could have been smugmug.... flickr... whatever.) of a fox against a red forested background, that I'm sure was taken with a wide angle lens, and the foxes head was full frame...... which looked "stuffed" by that I mean the fox looked like it was stuffed. There was something just not right about the eyes. Coupled with the fact the photographer must have been within inches. Totally possible, I don't doubt, but the photo looked fake, very. My initial reaction was not "look how close he got to that fox" it was "boy that looks fake" But the person was saying it was real in the description. I don't want to commit libel, so I won't show it to you.... not that I could find it again. Plus it's not really the point.

The point is taking a pic of a dead but and passing it off as alive, is just so wrong. Despicable even. Nothing wrong with taking a pic of a dead bug, and saying here is a dead (X) ... but to pass it off as real... total BS.....sorry that is how I feel. Mush like how I feel about aforementioned zoo "wildlife" shots. Some people may think I'm comparing apples to oranges, but I think they are similar ethical boundaries.


I will agree with archer, about the refrigerator. Not unethical, even from a humane or genuine article standpoint. There are always tricks you can do without crossing ethical borders.

[canonloader]

Some famous "nature shows" are guilty of using footage of zoos for "wildlife shots"

I caught a National Geographic program awhile back that not only admitted that some of their footage is not actually from the wild, but showed how they did it.

I have since seen some fast passing small print at the beginning of their programs that says not all shots were done in the wild.

I was shocked, but I guess someone caught them out and they had to admit it finally. :)